Whether he wonders this or truly believes it, is open to debate. In his mind (at the moment,) he believes that we are a creation born of artificial intelligence. Wouldn't that be a simulation based on someone else's imagination?

I said to him: No, we're as real as you and I. We have physical bodies that are born, we live, we age, grow old if we're able to. It's what comes after such as our consciousnesses surviving death that is more the unknown as to who or what is in control of our destiny besides ourselves. Because we most certainly are not.

If we are a simulation and part of a matrix why would we need a physical body at all? We'd be transparent as a hologram; virtual simulations only, of ourselves. And then so too the physical world we're born into.

If we are part of an artificial intelligence matrix, then we have absolutely no control over our physical selves at all or the physical world we inhabit.

But we do. That we've been given intelligence, however finite, and are able to think through problems ... solving them. Creating, inventing as we go ... we are in the process of becoming something more than a mere invention by something or someone else.

Our minds “create” what we perceive as reality. Matter, comprised of atoms, is largely empty space. Hallucinations seems completely real to those experiencing them. So I ask...what IS real? I propose it is subjective. Thus, being part of some simulation is completely plausible without us being aware of it.There are some pretty smart people who are toying with the idea being a possibility as well.

(Note I'm not saying that's NOT the case, just that there's no reason to say it IS the case...and that until somebody comes up with a way to test/falsify/verify the idea, the idea doesn't really do anything but sit there untestable)

COMMENT: What does this mean? What is the matrix as a whole based upon; and what are the parts? A "matrix" fundamentally and by definition must involve answers to these questions. In other words, what carries the information of the system, and what are the organizing (computational) principles involved?_________________________________________

"Whether he wonders this or truly believes it, is open to debate. In his mind (at the moment,) he believes that we are a creation born of artificial intelligence. Wouldn't that be a simulation based on someone else's imagination?"

COMMENT: The use of AI and the word "creation" implies a creator of a computer simulation of some sort. However, this (again) requires "hardware" that organizes prescribed "bits" (presumably electronic) of information in some meaningful and prescribed way. And, of course, who is the creator?_________________________________________

"I said to him: No, we're as real as you and I. We have physical bodies that are born, we live, we age, grow old if we're able to. It's what comes after such as our consciousnesses surviving death that is more the unknown as to who or what is in control of our destiny besides ourselves. Because we most certainly are not."

COMMENT: I think this is beside the point, because computer simulations are just as "real" as physical bodies, i.e. they have hardware (some "physical" component). Moreover, they are input-output systems, where the output is some "real" behavior of the system. Bringing in consciousness adds a whole new philosophical dimension to the discussion, depending upon whether you believe consciousness is "just" the physical brain, or you believe it has some degree of independence. But, in either event, the systematic properties of consciousness (human cognition) must be explained. If your son's "matrix" is about consciousness, he has to explain the structure of this matrix, and (again) how that structure carries information independent of the mechanistic structure of the physical brain.

_______________________________________

"If we are a simulation and part of a matrix why would we need a physical body at all? We'd be transparent as a hologram; virtual simulations only, of ourselves. And then so too the physical world we're born into."

COMMENT: It is not about physical or not physical, or visual transparency. This distinction is old fashioned. The point to remember is that if you want to avoid "magic" and stay within a broad range of scientific respectability, you have to provide "meat" to your idea of a "simulation." Simulations do not arise out of nothing. They involve an underlying structure, with an organizing logic. If such structure is not "physical" in the sense of classical physics, it must be quantum based, or based upon some as yet unknown organizing principle. In any event, it must be based upon something besides magic. In short, the complex properties of human consciousness, and human cognitive function, have to be explained in principle by some account of a structure that is sufficient to carry the information required to explain such function.______________________________________

"If we are part of an artificial intelligence matrix, then we have absolutely no control over our physical selves at all or the physical world we inhabit."

COMMENT: Yes. AI systems are deterministic, with an underlying structure of silicon chips and electronic logic gates. If, in fact, we have freewill, then we must be something more than either an AI system, or any other computational matrix._______________________________________

"But we do. That we've been given intelligence, however finite, and are able to think through problems ... solving them. Creating, inventing as we go ... we are in the process of becoming something more than a mere invention by somethingor someone else."

COMMENT: I agree. We are not computer simulations. However, we then must accept the burden of explaining what principles of science (cognitive neuroscience?) explain the human capacity for self-determination (freewill). Truth be told, there are no such principles. So, we either have a fundamental limitation of science, or we must be deluded in thinking we have such self-determination.

There are civilizations out there in which a trip to the edge of the universe is the same as visiting the Grand Canyon is to an American. And their grandkids complain about the cheesy t-shirts they get from their grandparents.

elderolddog Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> There are civilizations out there in which a trip> to the edge of the universe is the same as> visiting the Grand Canyon is to an American. And> their grandkids complain about the cheesy t-shirts> they get from their grandparents.

Well, that explains the multitudes of cheesy t-shirts in glow in the dark colors that are found along the side of the freeways .

I don't know if we're living in a simulation or not, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. On the surface, it sounds ludicrous, but there are good reasons many people believe we are.

I don't know how anybody can determine what is "real". I was certain I had reality figured out at one point (mormon belief) but now the only thing I'm sure about is that I actually know very little.

Our physical bodies are composed mostly of empty space with atoms in between. Based on our senses, who would have ever thought that? We certainly appear 100% physical, and for everyday applications, we are, but in reality, we aren't.

If you consider what computers were capable of doing 30 years ago, compared to what they do now, and how fast computer science advances, it's hard to say conclusively what the limits of computing are. Quantum computers will probably be a thing before too long, and they'll be a game changer that are magnitudes more powerful than non-quantum computers.

On what basis do you believe we'd be transparent if we were in a simulation? Common sense? Your gut? Throw that out the window whether you're talking a simulation or the world we perceive as real (and which very well could be real). Both can be unreliable.

None of the reasons you list as reasons why you disbelieve the possibility are convincing. A simulation could have physical limitations. A simultation could (possibly) grant us free will or the appearance of free will. Same with intelligence or the appearance of intelligence.

We just don't know and I don't think we can write it off so quickly. Sure, by today's computers it seems unlikely, but what about computers in the year 2100? Or 3100? Or a million years from now? It's kind of hard for us to predict what computers will be capable of doing at those points (assuming we continue to evolve and exist at those points).

Here's a couple of short videos explaining why some people think it's likely:

I don't know if we're living in a simulation or not, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. On the surface, it sounds ludicrous, but there are good reasons many people believe we are.

COMMENT: There really aren't any "good reasons" for such an assumption. I looked at the videos you attached and they are pure science fiction, with huge problems and issues. Elon Musk is a great entrepreneur, but not a scientist. The ideas expressed in the links are similar to the radical ideas expressed by theoretical physicist David Deutsch in his book "The Fabric of the Universe." Essentially, they take the ideas of quantum mechanics and proceed to speculate as to their computational and informational implications. However, few, if any, physicists accept such radical views.____________________________________________

I don't know how anybody can determine what is "real". I was certain I had reality figured out at one point (mormon belief) but now the only thing I'm sure about is that I actually know very little.

COMMENT: The limitations of human knowledge is one thing. Such limitations, however, should be imply a license to either dismiss established and experimentally documented scientific achievements, or speculate wildly far beyond what science as discovered. Pretty soon you are talking religion, not science.____________________________________________

If you consider what computers were capable of doing 30 years ago, compared to what they do now, and how fast computer science advances, it's hard to say conclusively what the limits of computing are. Quantum computers will probably be a thing before too long, and they'll be a game changer that are magnitudes more powerful than non-quantum computers.

COMMENT: The limits of classical computation are well known and understood; basically they are limited in principle by their ability to efficiently process vast amounts of information (i.e. their speed) across multiple domains. Quantum computation can theoretically meet this challenge, but has essentially stagnated for a number of practical reasons. There are NO practical applications of quantum computation that I am aware of; i.e. where such applications exceed the efficiency of classical computation in a real computational system. There seem to be little prospects at the moment for this to change in the short term._________________________________________

"None of the reasons you list as reasons why you disbelieve the possibility are convincing. A simulation could have physical limitations. A simultation could (possibly) grant us free will or the appearance of free will. Same with intelligence or the appearance of intelligence."

COMMENT: There is no way a simulation, either classical or quantum, could "grant" freewill. It is a logical impossibility. It could at best "simulate" freewill, meaning that it produces an algorithm(s) that makes conscious agents believe (falsely) they are acting freely._________________________________________

"We just don't know and I don't think we can write it off so quickly. Sure, by today's computers it seems unlikely, but what about computers in the year 2100? Or 3100? Or a million years from now? It's kind of hard for us to predict what computers will be capable of doing at those points (assuming we continue to evolve and exist at those points)."

COMMENT: Well ultimately yes. It is hard to predict. But, there is nothing in what we now know, or what we can now computationally do, that suggests anything like a matrix-like simulation of human beings, for a number of very well-defined reasons. Read Hubert Dreyfus' book, "What Computers Still Can't Do" (1972) which is still very applicable today, 40 years later. Also, read Nielson and Chung, Quantum Computation,(2010) for an understanding of the state of quantum computation in 2010, which really hasn't changed much.

Thinking you have a physical body would be part of the simulation. Ditto thinking you have free will. Actually, there is more than a little evidence that free will is in fact an illusion. There are people here who would argue vociferously against that. They can't help themselves. :)

The argument that the entire universe is a simulation hinges on the fact that mathematics fits the universe so precisely that it might well be that the mathematics came first, and the simulation of the universe was built based on mathematics, rather than discovering after the fact that mathematics fits the universe.

Of course you are still left with the question of who or what created the simulation, and why. But you have that question with the Big Bang too.

I find it extremely unlikely that the universe is a software simulation. However, I know of no compelling evidence that specifically rules it out, and the "mathematics fits too precisely to be a coincidence" argument is difficult to dismiss out of hand.

"Actually, there is more than a little evidence that free will is in fact an illusion."

COMMENT: There is much, much more evidence that freewill is NOT an illusion!________________________________________

"The argument that the entire universe is a simulation hinges on the fact that mathematics fits the universe so precisely that it might well be that the mathematics came first, and the simulation of the universe was built based on mathematics, rather than discovering after the fact that mathematics fits the universe."

COMMENT: Mathematics is a language invented by human beings. The fact that it "fits the universe so precisely" is indeed a remarkable fact about how the universe works, and does suggest the theoretical possibility of simulation built upon such mathematics. But such a simulation would occur outside the universe, and be a creation by some intelligent being doing the simulation. Such a simulation would not happen by chance, within the universe itself by some natural process.___________________________________________

"Of course you are still left with the question of who or what created the simulation, and why. But you have that question with the Big Bang too."

COMMENT: Right. So, are you suggesting that there is a God that created some simulation of a universe that we are all now a part of? What possible basis is there for such an assumption? Lack of knowledge (as to the Big Bang) is not of itself a license to suggest either that there is a God, or some simulation of the universe arising out of random, internal processes.____________________________________________

"I find it extremely unlikely that the universe is a software simulation. However, I know of no compelling evidence that specifically rules it out, and the "mathematics fits too precisely to be a coincidence" argument is difficult to dismiss out of hand."

COMMENT: The unlikeliness is so great, that that of itself is compelling evidence to reject it. Adding mathematics to the universe does not support such a conclusion in the least. After all, mathematics precisely explains the force of gravity. But that does not imply that gravity is some sort of computational simulation.

Your son is correct. It's just that most people cannot wrap their head around the concept because it is so complex. This does not mean that the physical world is not real, it just means that we are part of a simulation. A simulation that will culminate in unfathomable advancements.

In about thirty years time, we will reach a technological singularity in this world, and all things will be revealed. It will complete the circle from whence we came and where we are going. Beyond the singularity, AI will advance enough to spawn new DNA and new forms of life. It will be beyond the human form, and you will see how Gods will be created. AI will be God-like.

Wait thirty years and see for yourself. This will be earth's greatest moment to be alive. I just have to survive to see it happen and it is my greatest anticipation for things to come. For those of us that have studied calculus, physics, chemistry, biology, and earth sciences in depth, this is the only logical conclusion. We live in a simulation that will culminate in something grand.

I agree with above, I would like him to explain more of what he believes and why to better understand where he is coming from.

We have no need for a 'simulation' we are eternal beings now and after we dispose of this human suit of clothes. We can easily replace these with another suit of clothes maybe some similar to these maybe some not so similar.

As far a 'matrix' existing for all past, current and future events now that is a different thing.

I believe we 'can' connect to that 'information/knowledge' and some of course much better than others. In remote viewing, which I tinker at, I can get a lot of correct information when it comes to pictures in envelopes. However, sometimes it comes through visuals, sound, feelings, etc. by asking myself questions. However, I rarely get every main item and cannot rely on hearing/seeing something just because I heard/saw something on other projects.

My problem with the simulation theory your son is talking about is the same problem I have with many religions: namely, what it justifies. If the people we deal with are all only in our minds, then we can commit murder, sexual harassment, and a myriad of other atrocities against other people and our own planet with the justification that "Well, it's all a simulation and it's all in my mind, and it really doesn't mean a thing what I did." And at a time when everything from jobs to weapons of mass destruction are drawing us much closer together, thinking that you can do anything without the hint of reaction by others to what you do could have disastrous consequences on us as individuals and in groups and to our own planet.

I agree with your son about the randomness in the world--though in some ways it contradicts with his simulation theories. Still, it is known that there is a lot of randomness in nearly everything, including the people we meet. The concept of randomness in many human behaviors is often contested by those who believe in predestination and those who believe that they were born to fulfill some specific purpose.

Predestination and foreordination were compared and debated growing up LDS. Mormonism dismissed predestination in lieu of the other because the latter involved a principle of free will and self-determination the first does not.

I think it's possible to have elements of both in life. Some things that happen that shape us, who we become, and our destiny in life are often if not always beyond our control. That we are great at adapting to our environment and coping with whatever life directs our way is a testament of the resiliency of the human spirit that overcomes great odds to survive and sometimes thrive in a hostile world.

Amyjo Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Predestination and foreordination were compared> and debated growing up LDS. Mormonism dismissed> predestination in lieu of the other because the> latter involved a principle of free will and> self-determination the first does not.

Of course, there is a lot of debate on this board on whether or not the LDS church allows its followers to choose freely in the first place. If not, then all the LDS church is doing in this regard is merely window-dressing.>> I think it's possible to have elements of both in> life. Some things that happen that shape us, who> we become, and our destiny in life are often if> not always beyond our control. That we are great> at adapting to our environment and coping with> whatever life directs our way is a testament of> the resiliency of the human spirit that overcomes> great odds to survive and sometimes thrive in a> hostile world.

As in most things, the situation regarding randomness is more complex than most people realize. At the individual personal level, who we meet and what we do is often a random choice. However, if you step back and look at human beings in groups, what happens to us based upon the groups in which we find ourselves, no matter how arbitrary they may be, is not so random. And that lack of human groups randomness is highly subjective and based upon how other arbitrary human groups view the group(s) you are in.

Some groups are based on personal choice. But many, perhaps the most important statistically (like race and disability), are not. Sometimes, some individuals can overcome the negative views of being within their non-choice groups, but more often than not, they cannot.

Here's a good starting place in the video below. A foreshadowing of things to come before the matrix is blown wide open. Imagine a machine of 10000 IQ that will reveal the mysteries of the universe. It is a mathematical certainty that this singularity will occur. The year 2018 is still a year that ignorant humans are in control. Before we are forever tethered to limitless intelligence. God-like intelligence.

Look past this man's thick accent. He understands what the future holds.

Reply to Henry Bemis in post earlier in this tread (sorry, I didn't check the tread soon enough, and original post is way up-thread now):

BoJ: "Actually, there is more than a little evidence that free will is in fact an illusion."

COMMENT: There is much, much more evidence that freewill is NOT an illusion!

BoJ reply to COMMENT: Sez you. Google "does free will exist?" Lots of relatively recent discussion on the topic, including a series of articles in The Atlantic (2016) and Scientific American (2010). This is by no means a settled issue. We certainly feel like we have free will. We also certainly feel like the sunset is the sun setting, even though we know full well that what is really happening is that we are on a spot on the earth that is spinning into its own shadow. We still call it and think of it as a sunset even though we know better.

Free will may fall into the same category where appearance does not match reality. We get insulted when told that free will may not exist, but then the Catholic Church got pretty insulted when Copernicus/Galileo told the world that the earth was not the center of the universe. Our level of insult is not a reliable measure of reality.________________________________________

BoJ: "The argument that the entire universe is a simulation hinges on the fact that mathematics fits the universe so precisely that it might well be that the mathematics came first, and the simulation of the universe was built based on mathematics, rather than discovering after the fact that mathematics fits the universe."

COMMENT: Mathematics is a language invented by human beings. The fact that it "fits the universe so precisely" is indeed a remarkable fact about how the universe works, and does suggest the theoretical possibility of simulation built upon such mathematics. But such a simulation would occur outside the universe, and be a creation by some intelligent being doing the simulation. Such a simulation would not happen by chance, within the universe itself by some natural process.

BoJ Reply to Comment: Mathematics may be a language invented by humans, or it may be an intrinsic feature of the universe that was discovered by humans. In fact, it may be even more intrinsic than the universe itself. It is by no means self-evident and obvious that mathematics is a language invented by humans. A lot of people, including a lot of mathematicians, think mathematics is discovered, not invented.___________________________________________

BoJ: "Of course you are still left with the question of who or what created the simulation, and why. But you have that question with the Big Bang too."

COMMENT: Right. So, are you suggesting that there is a God that created some simulation of a universe that we are all now a part of? What possible basis is there for such an assumption? Lack of knowledge (as to the Big Bang) is not of itself a license to suggest either that there is a God, or some simulation of the universe arising out of random, internal processes.

BoJ reply to COMMENT: I don't know that the universe is a simulation. I just can't rule it out, and it would help explain why mathematics fits the universe so well. That's not much to hang a theory on, but we don't even have that much to explain why and how the Big Bang happened, yet we are pretty confident it did happen. So yes, there are huge unanswered questions about how the universe could be a simulation. I'm ok with that. It is still an interesting idea.

In any case, God, or a random internal process are not the only two possible explanations for how it could happen.

"BoJ Reply to Comment: Mathematics may be a language invented by humans, or it may be an intrinsic feature of the universe that was discovered by humans. In fact, it may be even more intrinsic than the universe itself. It is by no means self-evident and obvious that mathematics is a language invented by humans. A lot of people, including a lot of mathematicians, think mathematics is discovered, not invented."

COMMENT: Don't be ridiculous. Mathematics is based upon symbolic representations involving numbers and logical inferences. No one has found any numbers or other mathematical symbols in the natural world. Such things are human constructions. What *is* true is that the natural world appears to be higher ordered such as to make mathematical descriptions possible. Simulations are mathematical constructs (software) that require some medium (hardware) to run them. That is why some people (wrongly) proclaim that the universe is a simulation. If that were in fact true, there must be a God that constructed the simulation (software) to run on the universe.

P.S. I do not get my information from a quick Google search. If you want to understand the debate about free will, you need to read a few books on the subject. But that is another thread.

"Analysts at Bank of America have reportedly suggested there is a 20 to 50 per cent chance our world is a Matrix-style virtual reality and everything we experience is just a simulation.

The report, which was issued to clients, also implies even if our world was an illusion, we would never know about it.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch backed up the claims by citing comments from leading philosophers, scientists and other thinkers.

“It is conceivable that with advancements in artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and computing power, members of future civilizations could have decided to run a simulation of their ancestors," the report stated."

Amyjo Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> "Analysts at Bank of America have reportedly> suggested there is a 20 to 50 per cent chance our> world is a Matrix-style virtual reality and> everything we experience is just a simulation.>> The report, which was issued to clients, also> implies even if our world was an illusion, we> would never know about it.

If we would never know about it, how did they calculate a 20 to 50 percent chance for it?

It would seem if Bank of America and Merrill Lynch are funding these reports prepared by leading scientists and researchers in the field of study, to give to their very wealthy clientele, there is more to it than you suggest.

Amyjo Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> It would seem if Bank of America and Merrill Lynch> are funding these reports prepared by leading> scientists and researchers in the field of study,> to give to their very wealthy clientele, there is> more to it than you suggest.

What would show "more to it" would be evidence for it.That people believe it, even wealthy, powerful people, is not evidence for anything other than that wealthy, powerful people believe stuff.

Did you miss the point above?

Probabilities ("odds") are calculated using knowledge. For example, we can calculate the odds of a die coming up a particular number only by KNOWING that there are six numbers on a die, making the odds of any one number coming up 1 in 6.

If we can't KNOW if we're in a simulation or not, no such probability can be calculated.

So if somebody tells you that we can't know if we're in a simulation or not, then gives you odds of us being in a simulation or not, they're making stuff up. And contradicting themselves.

Wealthy, important people (even big banks) aren't immune from making stuff up and contradicting themselves any more than poor, non-important people are.

Amyjo Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> The research that was funded is by leading> researchers and scientists in the field of study.> That would be over your head, in terms of "missing> the point."

Actually, the brief simply said "scientists and philosophers."It said nothing about "leading," nor about "researchers."

And it doesn't matter who it is -- mathematical nonsense is mathematical nonsense. No appeal to authority fallacy can change that.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Amyjo Wrote:> --------------------------------------------------> -----> > The research that was funded is by leading> > researchers and scientists in the field of> study.> > That would be over your head, in terms of> "missing> > the point.">> Actually, the brief simply said "scientists and> philosophers."> It said nothing about "leading," nor about> "researchers."

The exact wording in the mini brief as follows: "Bank of America Merrill Lynch backed up the claims by citing comments from LEADING philosophers, scientists and other thinkers.

You must've missed that adjective somewhere in your reading awareness. Likewise scientists, by definition, are researchers in the fields of science.

"If we can't KNOW if we're in a simulation or not, no such probability can be calculated.

COMMENT: Probabilities are by definition uncertain, and therefore are in the context of some degree of lack of knowledge, unless the probabilities are so high or so low that our uncertainty is trivial.

In the present context, the probability calculus itself is flawed because of assumptions about the data, making its conclusions flawed.

Henry Bemis Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> "If we can't KNOW if we're in a simulation or not,> no such probability can be calculated.>> COMMENT: Probabilities are by definition> uncertain, and therefore are in the context of> some degree of lack of knowledge, unless the> probabilities are so high or so low that our> uncertainty is trivial.

Thank you for clarifying a simple understanding.

> In the present context, the probability calculus> itself is flawed because of assumptions about the> data, making its conclusions flawed.

This isn't known by us, because the report itself is not reprinted in this thread. We do not know how the researchers arrived at their conclusions other than it was derived from their research and data based. The report was prepared for its clients, not for the public at large.

"Its claims also appeal to the work of a philosophy professor from the University of Oxford. In 2003, Professor Nick Bostrom concluded there is significant possibility we "live in a simulation".

Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson also maintains the likelihood of the universe being a simulation “may be very high”.

The Bank of America’s report, which was looking at the implications of virtual reality, explained: “Many scientists, philosophers, and business leaders believe that there is a 20-50 per cent probability that humans are already living in a computer-simulated virtual world.

“In April 2016, researchers gathered at the American Museum of Natural History to debate this notion. The argument is that we are already approaching photorealistic 3D simulations that millions of people can simultaneously participate in.”

"Klee Irwin, founder of physics research group 'Quantum Gravity Research' discusses fundamental reality, and some of the clues found so far to back up the simulation theory. You can watch their groundbreaking documentary about these theories here...We Are Living In A Simulation - New Evidence! https://youtu.be/97FhauH1J58 ....

An advantage of believing that the universe is a software simulation is that the paranormal would be easy to explain. The laws of physics could be suspended or modified at will, locally or globally.

Having your intelligence/spirit survive death, or transfer to another body as sole occupant or on a timeshare basis, or simply exist in a non-corporeal state - all that becomes trivial. Time travel, ESP, reincarnation - piece of cake.

"An advantage of believing that the universe is a software simulation is that the paranormal would be easy to explain. The laws of physics could be suspended or modified at will, locally or globally."

COMMENT: Remember that a simulation is algorithmic and deterministic. As such, it assumes and encompasses "laws of physics" whether they are the same as the "real" laws of physics or not. Assuming it is indeed a true simulation, the laws of physics as we know them would be simulated as well. Thus, "paranormal" phenomenon would presumably be violations of these algorithmic laws. What is key here is your use of the words "at will." But this implies that the simulator, i.e. the agent creating the simulation, steps in to alter or trump the algorithms that define the laws of physics in the simulation. That may be "easy," but again it requires a creator, i.e. a simulator, i.e. "God."________________________________________

"Having your intelligence/spirit survive death, or transfer to another body as sole occupant or on a timeshare basis, or simply exist in a non-corporeal state - all that becomes trivial. Time travel, ESP, reincarnation - piece of cake."

COMMENT: Only if all of this was either encompassed by the simulation itself, i.e. by algorithmic processes of the simulation, or resulted from disturbances of the system by the simulator, presumably on a case by case basis.

Henry Bemis Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> "If we can't KNOW if we're in a simulation or not,> no such probability can be calculated.>> COMMENT: Probabilities are by definition> uncertain, and therefore are in the context of> some degree of lack of knowledge, unless the> probabilities are so high or so low that our> uncertainty is trivial.

Thank you for clarifying a simple understanding.

> In the present context, the probability calculus> itself is flawed because of assumptions about the> data, making its conclusions flawed.

This isn't known by us, because the report itself is not reprinted in this thread. We do not know how the researchers arrived at their conclusions other than it was derived from their research and data based. The report was prepared for its clients, not for the public at large.

"Its claims also appeal to the work of a philosophy professor from the University of Oxford. In 2003, Professor Nick Bostrom concluded there is significant possibility we "live in a simulation".

Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson also maintains the likelihood of the universe being a simulation “may be very high”.

The Bank of America’s report, which was looking at the implications of virtual reality, explained: “Many scientists, philosophers, and business leaders believe that there is a 20-50 per cent probability that humans are already living in a computer-simulated virtual world.

“In April 2016, researchers gathered at the American Museum of Natural History to debate this notion. The argument is that we are already approaching photorealistic 3D simulations that millions of people can simultaneously participate in.”